IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60312

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY T. GROSE, SR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); JOHN 

STEVIAN, Human Resources Specialist (DHS), FEMA Human Capital 

Recruitment; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Federal Agency 

of the United States Government; FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Federal Agency of the United States 

Government, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:11-CV-227

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony T. Grose, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the 

dismissal of his lawsuit alleging claims of discrimination on the basis of race, 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60312 Document: 00512808627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2014
No. 14-60312

sex, and military-connected disability. In his lawsuit, Grose alleges that the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (“FEMA”) failure to hire him was 

the result of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), the 

Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(“USERRA”), the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (“Stafford Act”), 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He further alleges 

negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).

In 2007, Grose applied to FEMA for a position as a Housing Advisor 

Caseworker. An inadvertent error in the job posting announcement led to the 

disqualification of his application and those of 124 other candidates who relied 

on that erroneous posting. In a separate FEMA error, the notice sent to Grose 

informing him that he had not been selected for the position gave an incorrect 

reason for his disqualification.

Grose filed a complaint of employment discrimination with the 

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). An administrative law judge with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) found no evidence 

of discrimination, and DHS dismissed his complaint in January 2010. Grose 

was informed of the deadlines to file an appeal with the EEOC or a civil action 

in federal district court. Rather than pursuing either option, Grose filed three 

ultimately unsuccessful appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board, the 

last of which terminated in April 2011. Grose then filed the present lawsuit 

on June 3, 2011, naming as defendants Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS, 

2

 Case: 14-60312 Document: 00512808627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2014
No. 14-60312

in her individual and official capacities, and John Stevian, Human Resources 

Specialist for FEMA, in his individual and official capacities.1

On Defendants-Appellees’ combined motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction and for summary judgment, the district court dismissed all 

claims against Napolitano and Stevian in their official capacities. The court 

found that (1) Grose’s Title VII claims were time-barred, or alternatively, that 

Grose had failed to demonstrate that the government’s legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting his application was pretext for 

discrimination;2 (2) Grose had failed to establish a prima facie case of 

discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act; (3) Grose had failed to adduce any 

evidence supporting his claim under the Stafford Act; (4) no damages remedy 

existed under the Fifth Amendment for actions against federal agencies; (5) 

Grose’s VEOA and USERRA claims were untimely filed; (6) Grose had failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his FTCA claim; and (7) the 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Grose’s claims under the ADA, 

§ 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Later, in separate orders, the district 

court dismissed Grose’s remaining claims against Stevian and Napolitano in 

their individual capacities for, inter alia, insufficient service of process.3 In 

various post-judgment motions, Grose pleaded additional claims of bias and 

1 Although Grose later amended his complaint to include both DHS and FEMA as 

defendants, throughout this lawsuit the defendants have styled themselves according to 

Grose’s original designations. Because a lawsuit against a federal official in her official 

capacity is essentially a lawsuit against the entity she represents, for the purposes of this 

appeal we treat as one entity DHS, FEMA, and the individual defendants in their official 

capacities. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985).

2 See Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.2d 632, 636 (Fifth Cir. 2011) (describing the 

modified McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII discrimination claims).

3 A federal official sued in her individual capacity must be served with process 

according to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), within 120 days of the 

complaint being filed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e), 4(m). The complaint was filed on June 3, 2011, 

and the district court allowed Grose considerable time in which to perfect service 

(approximately 24 months for Stevian and 33 months for Napolitano).

3

 

 Case: 14-60312 Document: 00512808627 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2014
No. 14-60312

misconduct on the part of the district court and counsel for DefendantsAppellees.

On appeal, Grose does not address the reasoning of the district court in 

dismissing his claims, relying instead on his own vague and unsupported 

allegations. Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, Grose has waived his 

claims on appeal by failing to preserve them adequately.4 Our review of the 

record and the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinions reveals no 

reversible error of fact or law. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED.

4 See, e.g., Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008).

4

 

 Case: 14-60312 Document: 00512808627 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/20/2014